Creepshow...1982...120 minutes...rated R...starring (in various segments) Hal Holbrook, Adrienne Barbeau, Leslie Nielsen, and Ed Harris...written by Stephen King...directed by George Romero
This movie is a throwback to segmented horror films as well as an homage to horror magazines like "Creepy" and "Eerie" which were popular in what seems like an age ago. These comics were also the bane of good parenting as they depicted all sorts of supernatural foulness like corpses rising from the grave, strange creatures, and people getting their just desserts, usually in horrible ways and with the most wonderful sound depictions thrown in.
Honestly, I expect this movie to be an acquired taste. The segmented horror film has mostly gone the way of the dodo, and largely for good reason. One of the last ones I remember seeing was the fourth Hellraiser movie, which went this route with the history of the puzzle box and the LeMarchand family. Usually the movies would end up being uneven, with people having their favorite segments and occasionally having a piece that was just plain painful to sit through. Still, this type of movie had its day...and with the various stories one could find in a horror magazine, it was a natural fit.
Still, the movie has (for me anyways) some wonderful moments. "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" is amusing to watch as Stephen King plays a farm yokel who meets your typical bad end. Adrienne Barbeau and Hal Holbrook are always good performers to watch, no matter what material they're given. Leslie Nielsen is rather sinister in his piece,which is atypical of the comedies he's known for. Of course, I would be remiss is I didn't point out the superb dancing skills of Ed Harris as well.
I find it a fun movie largely because my dad had a huge stack of the first issues of "Creepy" magazine, and I remember reading them when I would visit him. Horror was one of the few ways we connected, which sounds bad...and certainly it wasn't good, but time has managed to soften much of the bad parts of our relationship since his passing more than 10 years ago now. So my rating does reflect some sentimentality, be warned. Maybe not a lot though...
I give this film 2.5 floating specters out of 5.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Jennifer's Body
Jennifer's Body...2009...102 minutes...rated R...starring Amanda Seyfried, Megan Fox, Johnny Simmons, and Adam Brody...written by Diablo Cody...directed by Karyn Kusama
Needy and Jennifer are BFF's that have known each other since they were small, and nothing could ever get in the way of their friendship. That is, until they decide to go out to a local watering hole in Devil's Kettle to see an up-and-coming indy band by the name of Low Shoulder. Jennifer hooks up with the band after the bar burns down, and has a night she never expected. After that, she's a little different...an "eating people" kind of different. The boys in the town are becoming appetizers, and Jennifer's new attitude is causing a serious strain on the two girls' friendship. What will Needy have to do...especially when her boyfriend starts looking like lunch?
Sometimes the fusion of comedy and horror works brilliantly, and sometimes you just get an odd flavor of movie. This movie for me stayed more around the "tangeloberry" end of that spectrum...despite all the jokes you can make about Megan Fox being a maneater, that this film simply revealed what Michael Bay already knew, etc etc. Still, if your preference runs toward quirky, "Jennifer's Body" has much that it can offer you. J.K. Simmonds has a smalll part as a local teacher with a hook for a hand who is just...odd, but amusingly so. Lance Henricksen also has a small cameo, which was a welcome sight.
Amusing as it can be in moments, the movie felt forced in places, and I never quite figured out if it was to be completely satirical or have moments where we were actually supposed to feel for these oddball teens and their demonic problem. I also didn't quite understand how or why Needy and Jennifer were as "linked" as they were in moments, besides the obvious childhood connection. Was it deliberate on Jennifer's part, was it because they were "blood sisters", or was it just something that the writer just couldn't be bothered to explain? Ditto with all the native wildlife being drawn in on some scenes...I've seen plenty of movies and read my share of occult books and that still left me scratching my head a bit.
The movie's bumpy and uneven, but I also know that you can find worse things to kill off an evening with. Don't spend money or anything on this one, but if it comes up on cable, you might want to give it a look. I'll give this film 2.5 bowie knives out of 5.
Needy and Jennifer are BFF's that have known each other since they were small, and nothing could ever get in the way of their friendship. That is, until they decide to go out to a local watering hole in Devil's Kettle to see an up-and-coming indy band by the name of Low Shoulder. Jennifer hooks up with the band after the bar burns down, and has a night she never expected. After that, she's a little different...an "eating people" kind of different. The boys in the town are becoming appetizers, and Jennifer's new attitude is causing a serious strain on the two girls' friendship. What will Needy have to do...especially when her boyfriend starts looking like lunch?
Sometimes the fusion of comedy and horror works brilliantly, and sometimes you just get an odd flavor of movie. This movie for me stayed more around the "tangeloberry" end of that spectrum...despite all the jokes you can make about Megan Fox being a maneater, that this film simply revealed what Michael Bay already knew, etc etc. Still, if your preference runs toward quirky, "Jennifer's Body" has much that it can offer you. J.K. Simmonds has a smalll part as a local teacher with a hook for a hand who is just...odd, but amusingly so. Lance Henricksen also has a small cameo, which was a welcome sight.
Amusing as it can be in moments, the movie felt forced in places, and I never quite figured out if it was to be completely satirical or have moments where we were actually supposed to feel for these oddball teens and their demonic problem. I also didn't quite understand how or why Needy and Jennifer were as "linked" as they were in moments, besides the obvious childhood connection. Was it deliberate on Jennifer's part, was it because they were "blood sisters", or was it just something that the writer just couldn't be bothered to explain? Ditto with all the native wildlife being drawn in on some scenes...I've seen plenty of movies and read my share of occult books and that still left me scratching my head a bit.
The movie's bumpy and uneven, but I also know that you can find worse things to kill off an evening with. Don't spend money or anything on this one, but if it comes up on cable, you might want to give it a look. I'll give this film 2.5 bowie knives out of 5.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The Lost Boys
The Lost Boys...1987...97 minutes...R...starring Jason Patric, Corey Haim, Dianne Wiest, Keifer Sutherland, Jami Gertz, and Corey Feldman...written by Janice Fischer, James Jeremias, and Jeffrey Boam...directed by Joel Schumacher
Meet Michael and Sam, two displaced brothers who have relocated to Santa Carla with their mom and have moved in with Grandpa. It's bad enough trying to settle in to a new home in the best of circumstances; it's much worse when your new town is reputedly the murder capital of the world. It's also much worse when one of the most attractive girls in town hangs with a gang of biker punks...and they all turn out to be vampires. It's not long before Michael comes down with a case of semi-vampirism, leaving Sam to recruit two local teens...the Fearless Frog Brothers...to help fight off Michael's new friends, and maybe even Michael himself.
"The Lost Boys" is a seminal 80s vampire movie, still eminently quotable to this day. It's got a notable cast, quirky dialogue, wonderful characters, and enough gloss to shine the grubbiest of floors. (Well, it's Joel Schumacher, what did you expect?) Unlike a lot of Dracula movies and various 70s films with vampires, this movie is where we really start seeing younger, sexier bloodsucking fiends. Tuxedos and opera coats are traded in for leather jackets and trenchcoats, while the vampire hunters aren't doctors or scientists but offbeat comic geeks instead. Make no mistake, if you're wondering how we got to vampire romance novels saturating the book market and shows like "True Blood" holding popular shares of ratings, movies like "The Lost Boys" are at the heart of it...(yes, Anne Rice gets her share of the blame/glory as well, but I'm discussing movies here.)
While there's a good share of gore and goo (vampires don't die neatly in this movie), there's not a whole lot of actual scares in this movie...it's vampire heavy but horror light, if you will. I think this also has much tom do with the appeal of this movie; it's a vampire movie for people wouldn't normally watch horror.
Still, as I've said before, something entertaining is worth its weight in appeal. I give this one 4 holy water squirt-guns out of 5.
Meet Michael and Sam, two displaced brothers who have relocated to Santa Carla with their mom and have moved in with Grandpa. It's bad enough trying to settle in to a new home in the best of circumstances; it's much worse when your new town is reputedly the murder capital of the world. It's also much worse when one of the most attractive girls in town hangs with a gang of biker punks...and they all turn out to be vampires. It's not long before Michael comes down with a case of semi-vampirism, leaving Sam to recruit two local teens...the Fearless Frog Brothers...to help fight off Michael's new friends, and maybe even Michael himself.
"The Lost Boys" is a seminal 80s vampire movie, still eminently quotable to this day. It's got a notable cast, quirky dialogue, wonderful characters, and enough gloss to shine the grubbiest of floors. (Well, it's Joel Schumacher, what did you expect?) Unlike a lot of Dracula movies and various 70s films with vampires, this movie is where we really start seeing younger, sexier bloodsucking fiends. Tuxedos and opera coats are traded in for leather jackets and trenchcoats, while the vampire hunters aren't doctors or scientists but offbeat comic geeks instead. Make no mistake, if you're wondering how we got to vampire romance novels saturating the book market and shows like "True Blood" holding popular shares of ratings, movies like "The Lost Boys" are at the heart of it...(yes, Anne Rice gets her share of the blame/glory as well, but I'm discussing movies here.)
While there's a good share of gore and goo (vampires don't die neatly in this movie), there's not a whole lot of actual scares in this movie...it's vampire heavy but horror light, if you will. I think this also has much tom do with the appeal of this movie; it's a vampire movie for people wouldn't normally watch horror.
Still, as I've said before, something entertaining is worth its weight in appeal. I give this one 4 holy water squirt-guns out of 5.
Fright Night
Fright Night...1985...106 minutes....rated R...starring William Ragsdale, Chris Sarandon, Amanda Bearse, and Roddy McDowell...written and directed by Tom Holland
Poor Charley Brewster, he thought he had it bad just trying to get into his girlfriend's pants. Life takes a serious turn for the worse when a vampire and his (ghoul? housebuddy? whatever) move into the house next door. Of course, no one believes him...not the school horror geek, not his girlfriend, certainly not the police, and not even the host of the late night horror movie show, Mr. Peter Vincent (Vampire Slayer! Or at least in the movies he was in.) How is Charlie going to survive the wrath of his undead neighbor?
Okay, this may not be the best movie ever, but it is one that is near and dear to my heart. Partially I find it so because it's out of my teenage years, partially because I think that Roddy McDowell is at his best here as a washed-up actor trying to help Charlie find his bearings (after being paid, of course). I'm also fond of the whole "Evil Ed" character as well. It's a charming, fairly tight, entertaining movie...and I think we should respect the films that make us feel good, technically perfect or not.
I'm not such a big fan of Amanda Bearse...though it's amusing to remember that she was here before she was on "Married With Children". I had a hard time believing that a vampire would find her appealing, even if she resembled someone he once knew. The makeup effects are what they were for movies at the time, and if some of them seem cheesy, at least they work with the concept of parodying old vampire films. That said, when Amy inevitably turns vampiric, there's a shot where her mouth is split incredibly wide open that I still find a touch unsettling.
Something to note is the vampire himself. He's not calling himself something archaic like Vlad or Yorga, but by the perfectly acceptable name of Jerry Dandridge. He dresses like a yuppie, has wonderful but not formal manners, and there's a touch of the devilish rogue about him. We know he has some sort of history, but he's perfectly comfortable in the modern age of the 80s as opposed to living in a moldering old castle. Vampirism seems less like a terrible curse, though there's still evil in it...the trend of making vampires more mainstream has begun right here in this movie,but will get a big push later in Schumacher's "The Lost Boys".
I give this one 3.5 chewed apples out of 5...and who knew vampires ate apples?
Poor Charley Brewster, he thought he had it bad just trying to get into his girlfriend's pants. Life takes a serious turn for the worse when a vampire and his (ghoul? housebuddy? whatever) move into the house next door. Of course, no one believes him...not the school horror geek, not his girlfriend, certainly not the police, and not even the host of the late night horror movie show, Mr. Peter Vincent (Vampire Slayer! Or at least in the movies he was in.) How is Charlie going to survive the wrath of his undead neighbor?
Okay, this may not be the best movie ever, but it is one that is near and dear to my heart. Partially I find it so because it's out of my teenage years, partially because I think that Roddy McDowell is at his best here as a washed-up actor trying to help Charlie find his bearings (after being paid, of course). I'm also fond of the whole "Evil Ed" character as well. It's a charming, fairly tight, entertaining movie...and I think we should respect the films that make us feel good, technically perfect or not.
I'm not such a big fan of Amanda Bearse...though it's amusing to remember that she was here before she was on "Married With Children". I had a hard time believing that a vampire would find her appealing, even if she resembled someone he once knew. The makeup effects are what they were for movies at the time, and if some of them seem cheesy, at least they work with the concept of parodying old vampire films. That said, when Amy inevitably turns vampiric, there's a shot where her mouth is split incredibly wide open that I still find a touch unsettling.
Something to note is the vampire himself. He's not calling himself something archaic like Vlad or Yorga, but by the perfectly acceptable name of Jerry Dandridge. He dresses like a yuppie, has wonderful but not formal manners, and there's a touch of the devilish rogue about him. We know he has some sort of history, but he's perfectly comfortable in the modern age of the 80s as opposed to living in a moldering old castle. Vampirism seems less like a terrible curse, though there's still evil in it...the trend of making vampires more mainstream has begun right here in this movie,but will get a big push later in Schumacher's "The Lost Boys".
I give this one 3.5 chewed apples out of 5...and who knew vampires ate apples?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)